Nothing.
I'm not going back to the old model. The new model is so much better that
it's not even worth entertaining as a theory to go back.
That said, I _am_ considering changing just the numbering. Not to go back
to the old model, but because a constantly increasing minor number leads
to big numbers. I'm not all that thrilled with "26" as a number: it's hard
to remember.
So I would not dismiss (and have been thinking about starting) talk about
a simple numbering reset (perhaps yearly), but the old model of 3-year
developement trees is simply not coming back as far as I'm concerned.
In fact, I think the time-based releases (ie the "2 weeks of merge window
until -rc1, followed by roughly two months of stabilization") has been so
successful that I'd prefer to skip the version numbering model too. We
don't do releases based on "features" any more, so why should we do
version _numbering_ based on "features"?
For example, I don't see any individual feature that would merit a jump
from 2.x to 3.x or even from 2.6.x to 2.8.x. So maybe those version jumps
should be done by a time-based model too - matching how we actually do
releases anyway.
So if the version were to be date-based, instead of releasing 2.6.26,
maybe we could have 2008.7 instead. Or just increment the major version
every decade, the middle version every year, and the minor version every
time we make a release. Whatever.
But three-year development trees with a concurrent stable tree? Nope. Not
going to happen.
Linus
--
